First Aid Allowance

The employee grieved that he had not received the first aid allowance as set out in the NJC Directive and relied on any and all relevant provisions of his collective agreement, TB Policies and applicable legislation. The employee requested the first aid allowance ($300) to be made whole, to receive any and all remedies deemed just and that the effective date be May 1982.

The grievor is responsible for investigating and enforcing various acts and regulations. He is also required to develop and promote a greater awareness of certain resources via public education and awareness programs.  His job description also refers to rendering emergency first aid to injured persons or victims of accidents and/or emergency or disaster situations. As a result of having to perform first aid duties, the grievor maintained that he should receive the allowance set out in the First Aid to the General Public – Allowance to Employees Directive.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the key activities listed in the grievor's work description did not include the provision of first aid. However references are found under other headings of the work description like "Well-being of individuals" "Job-content knowledge", "Psychological/Emotional Effort" and "Work Environment".

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the intent of the First Aid Allowance Directive is to provide an allowance to employees who are required to perform first aid to the general public, in addition to their regular duties, where there is a lack of readily available emergency medical treatment facilities in the immediate area.  The allowance was paid to such employees in order to recognize the responsibility to perform first-aid for which an employee does not receive recognition in his or her job description and which ultimately impacts on an employee's classification level and remuneration.

The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that the grievor met the requirements of section 5.1 of the First Aid Allowance Directive which rendered him eligibile for the first aid allowance.

The grievor's regular duties pertain to the key activites listed in the work description, which related to the conservation and protection of certain resources. The requirement to perform first aid and/or search and rescue is not noted as a key activity.  There were in fact very few references to the requirement to perform first aid and search and rescue.  The Bargaining Agent representative maintained that section 5.2 of the Directive clearly identifies those not eligible for the first aid allowance; i.e. doctors, nurses, firefighters, where the provision of first aid is an inherent requirement of the position and the remoteness of a community or area does not come into play.

The Bargaining Agent representative also indicated that this type of position is not listed as an "excluded personnel" in the Directive because the provision of first aid is not an inherent requirement of the position. In fact, the work description under "Well-Being of Individuals" clearly states that it is in remote communities that the position may be requested by other agencies or the public to assist in search and rescue activities required to rescue individuals and/or provide on-site emergency first aid or care. The reference to remote communities is in keeping with the third condition outlined in section 5.1 of the First Aid Allowance Directive.

As the provision of first aid care is clearly not a regular duty and does not appear under the key activities listed in the grievor's work description, it cannot be considered as a part of the grievor's regular duties.

The Bargaining Agent representative indicated that the classification grievance committee's rationale was clear in that this type of position was deemed to be responsible for one distinct activity – the conservation and protection of certain resources; the requirement to provide first aid was not recognized as an activity. The employer recognized in its classification analysis completed in January 2003 that the classification standard failed to capture and recognize the requirement to perform first-aid. Therefore, the grievor does not receive any compensation whatsoever for the provision of first aid care.

The Bargaining Agent representative also maintained that the intent of the First Aid Allowance Directive has been violated in that the grievor is not being compensated for performing first aid care, which remains outside his regular duties and ultimately fails to recognize and compensate the grievor accordingly. For all the reasons stated above, the National Joint Council should uphold the grievance and grant the corrective measures requested.

The Departmental representative indicated that it was the intent of the Directive to recognize that an allowance be paid to those employees who are expected to provide first aid to the general public, in addition to their regular duties. The directive was specific in this regard and the Departmental representative cited references to this condition in sections 3 and 5.1.2. He also noted the references to the requirement to provide first aid in the grievor's work description.

Based on the condition set out in the Directive and the references in the grievor's work description to the requirement to provide first aid, there should be a clear understanding that this type of duties include the provision of first aid, in the context of the requirement to respond to search and rescue, disaster or emergency situations.  The Departmental representative indicated that it was part of the employees' regular duties and not "in addition to their regular duties" as prescribed by the Directive.  Any compensation for these duties must, therefore, be provided by the classification process, as the intent of the Directive is to compensate those who must provide first aid duties outside of what is prescribed as their regular duties, i.e. duties outside of what is already being compensated within their classified work description.

In response to the suggestion in submissions at previous levels of the grievance process that insufficient weight had been given to the provision of first aid in reviewing the classification of this type of position, the Departmental representative indicated that it was a separate issue which should be addressed in its proper venue. He mentioned that it was not this committee's mandate to review the application or interpretation of classification standards.

In response to the suggestion that certain positions in another organization are in receipt of the first aid allowance although the provision of first aid is provided in their job decscription, the Departmental representative referred to section 5.1 of the Directive (Eligibility Guidelines). It was clearly the intent of the Directive's authors to establish an exception for certain positions; the same section provides that all other positions still have to meet the four requirements also specified in paragraph 5.1.

The Departmental representative concluded by stating that this type of position did not qualify for the first aid allowance under this Directive.

The Executive Committee considered and agreed with the report of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee which concluded that the grievor was not treated within the intent of the directive for the following reasons:

(a)   the inclusion of a duty in the job description does not automatically make it a "regular duty" as envisioned in the Directive;

(b)   the employer failed to demonstrate that the first aid activities are an inherent requirement or regular duties of the employee's position.

The Executive Committee agreed that retroactivity be limited to 25 working days preceding the date of the grievance. The Committee also agreed that the department should review duties relating to the provision of first aid responsibilities for employees in similar positions to determine if further allowances are warranted pursuant to section 4.2 of the Directive.

The grievance was upheld.